Monday, November 10, 2008

Radio-Canada Agrees to Air New Documentary

Radio-Canada Agrees to Air New Documentary

November 10, 2008

 

Dear HonestReporting Canada subscriber:

On October 31, we questioned why Radio-Canada, the French-arm of CBC, had aired the pro-Palestinian advocacy film "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land" on its documentary program "Les grands reportages". We felt that in airing this film, Radio-Canada failed to inform its viewers that the "documentary" was not an objective study of media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but instead was a pro-Palestinian advocacy tool with a political agenda, rife with errors and omissions that have seriously misled Canadians.

Thanks to your many emails, Radio-Canada acknowledged that their host's introduction was poorly presented and out of context given Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Furthermore, the network committed to air additional "documentaries providing different perspectives on the situation in Israel and Gaza" in the coming months. Many of our members who complained to Radio-Canada received the following reply from their Director of Complaints for French Services, which noted among other things, that the film was "clearly pro-Palestinian":

"Dear Sir or Madam,   

 

We received your comments about the documentary Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land, whose French version aired October 23 on RDI as part of Les grands reportages.

 

First, allow me to briefly explain the context in which we air documentaries. It is an acknowledged fact that with the documentary format, the author's perspective forms a significant part of the production. In nearly all cases, these films are shot by directors with no affiliation to Radio-Canada. We choose to broadcast them because we feel they contain noteworthy information.

 

In airing point-of-view documentaries, Radio-Canada is not endorsing the opinions they contain. Rather, we are fulfilling our duty to reflect a diverse range of viewpoints on topics of public interest.

 

Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land contained relevant information for Canadians about how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is covered in the US media. It was a US-made documentary produced by the Media Education Foundation and distributed by Mundovision.

 

That said, the film is a partial update of a documentary shot four years ago, before Israel withdrew from Gaza. Consequently, our introduction should have placed it in the context of 2004, rather than present it as reflecting the current challenges of the Middle East in the run-up to the 2008 US presidential election.

 

It did indeed present a highly personal point of view on the conflict-one that we acknowledge was clearly pro-Palestinian. Rest assured that we have recently acquired other documentaries providing different perspectives on the situation in Israel and Gaza, which we plan to air in the coming months.

 

I hope you find these comments satisfactory. If not, and should you see fit to do so, you may ask the CBC/Radio-Canada French Services Ombudsman to review the case.

 

Best Regards,

 

Geneviève Guay, Director, Complaints Handling Information, French Services"

 

While we credit Radio-Canada for acknowledging that their introduction of the film was placed out of context and for agreeing to air additional documentaries to provide a range of different perspectives on the Mideast, notwithstanding, this issue isn't about achieving equitable balance over time as our original complaint contended. Airing a "Pro-Israel" documentary at a later date doesn't absolve the network for its original sin in airing a "pro-Palestinian" propaganda film rife with errors and replete of serious omissions. It could be reasonably argued, that had our members and the community at large not taken action in the first place, prompting Radio-Canada to air an additional documentary, only a pro-Palestinian perspective would have been disseminated to Radio-Canada's viewing audience.

By broadcasting this film, Radio-Canada abdicated its responsibility as a public broadcaster to do the necessary quality control checks which should have ensured that this pro-Palestinian advocacy film was not aired in the first place. As the film certainly didn't adhere to Radio-Canada's journalistic standards for "point-of-view documentaries in the sense of advocacy", in order for Radio-Canada to remedy this situation in a way that maintains its credibility, it's incumbent upon the network's Ombudsman to formally review this matter.
 
What You Can Do To Make A Difference:
 
By voluntarily disclosing its journalistic lapses and how it will prevent them in the future, Radio-Canada can strengthen its credibility and become a stronger news organization.

Ask Radio-Canada Ombudsman Ms. Julie Miville-Dechene to conduct a formal review of Radio-Canada's October 23 presentation of the film "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land" to determine if the network's presentation of the film adhered to Radio-Canada standards of broadcasting and codes of ethics. Please send letters to ombudsman@radio-canada.ca or call (514) 597-4757 to ask for a review.

 
HonestReporting.ca
 
To support our continued efforts to hold the Canadian news media accountable for their reporting on Israel, please donate here today. Through your donations, you can help ensure that Canadian journalists are held to the highest standards of "Honest Reporting."
 
 
Or send a cheque to:
 
HonestReporting Canada
PO Box 6, Station Q
Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7
(416) 915-9157

Thank you for your ongoing commitment to fair and accurate
media coverage of Israel and the Middle East
 
Get Involved Today
                                    HonestReporting Canada
                PO Box 6, Station Q, Toronto, ON, Canada M4T 2L7
                                    info@honestreporting.ca

You are currently subscribed to honestreportingcanada as: pressing4truth.canada@blogger.com
To unsubscribe click here
or send a blank email to leave-8466260-30846861.70055780e4c7785a46ecfd4be95feb9c@pr1.netatlantic.com
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

VIDEO:Canada Human Rights

VIDEO of CTV PowerPlay Canada Human? Rights Commission?

Iranian S-Elections?

Evolution / Intelligent Design

Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed

I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?

We have become a nation of beggars

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]

POINTS

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:

Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.

To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.

We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.

Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.

Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.

Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.

At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.

And why not?

Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

Educational Purposes Only

All articles quoted here are for educational purposes only. Canada-For-Truth encourages you to read the original articles on their respective sites.
We do not necessarily agree with all links posted here but we include them to bring balance to an unbalanced media.